Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

Senator Higgins wondered if the current system was not broken then why fix it. He also referred to the issues that I raised concerning speed and flexibility. If anything has been around for 80 years, there is a general consensus that it is time for change, not for its own sake but in order to move forward. I reiterate what I said in the Lower House. The 1999 PricewaterhouseCoopers strategic review of the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission pointed out that the regime operated under the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956, which vests all significant recruitment functions in the legal personages of the commissioners. That was a suitable approach at a time when there was little difficulty in attracting candidates to public service employment. The numbers to be employed were small in relative terms and generic recruitment to particular grade levels rather than to individual Departments or offices was the order of the day.

However, the generalist, service-wide recruitment regime set up by the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 has not had the necessary flexibility to be responsive to organisational needs, which have evolved over time. In particular, competitions were run too infrequently to attract and retain quality candidates in a buoyant employment market and enable a targeted and timely response to the filling of vacancies and new posts.

The evaluation of the process through the strategic management initiative in the Civil Service carried out by PA Consulting in 2002 concluded that the Civil Service is a more effective organisation than a decade ago. However, the evaluation also concluded that implementation remained incomplete and that accelerated progress, particularly in human resources management, was required. In particular, PA Consulting recommended that the Civil Service should have the discretion to recruit directly from the database. In that context, it said that it supported the Bill. It also noted the need to ensure that standards be maintained in the course of any delegation of authority to balance that requirement with enhanced flexibility and local decision-making. That balance is adhered to in the Bill. Like Senator Maurice Hayes, most Senators were extremely keen to discuss the importance of probity and public trust in the Civil Service. We have gone to every length to ensure that is so. It will be essential to the credibility and work of the Civil Service that the public service has that trust. If that is not to the fore in recruitment, it will not be to the fore afterwards.

Regarding decentralisation, which was raised by most Senators, I assure Senator Higgins and others that it will go ahead. The programme announced on budget day will be delivered and the entire Civil Service is working towards that end. The Bill will support the newly decentralised offices by allowing local managers to recruit staff locally. That option has been offered in the Bill. Previously there was only one option and one had to recruit centrally. Now local chief executives of Departments or the Garda Commissioner are generally the head of the Department and that is still a very restricted and select group of people. They will have the option, if they so wish, to recruit locally. It may make a great deal of sense for a Department in County Donegal. I will not repeat Senator McDowell's comment. As someone generally so enlightened in the House, making very positive contributions, I am sure that he did not mean his reference to "God awful places down the country". That is a very unenlightened approach and he should travel a little more outside the capital to see that the dingy pubs to which he referred are quite attractive places now. I am sure that Senator Moylan would refer to some of the most popular places in his own village of Banagher, which used to be referred to as dingy but now attracts visitors from all over the globe.

Regarding the common sense involved in recruiting ten civil servants in Donegal or Knock, in a centralised situation, of the ten people who might be selected, two might be from Donegal, three from Dublin, two from Kerry and perhaps one from Knock. That would not make any sense since they would throw their hands up in the air and say that they had no intention of joining the Civil Service in Knock and wanted to go to Dublin or wherever. The facility and flexibility that it will bring will be extremely positive.

Senator Mansergh referred to delivering on decentralisation. Very intense negotiations are going on behind the scenes all the time. Civil Service unions will come out and make their case, trying to get a better deal for themselves. As someone with past experience of lobby groups, I am very familiar with that. I canvassed in Dublin north and south during the local elections and came across people on the doorsteps who were in specific situations. Their spouses, they or their children had no intention of moving and decentralisation is voluntary, which in some cases will probably mean that, if the whole Department moves, the job the person was doing may not be there in future. However, their jobs will be there in the Civil Service. The grade and level of remuneration will remain the same.

I was shocked to hear Senator O'Toole's comments on his experiences of the CAF website. That was certainly not my experience. I am not the most computer-literate person, but I logged onto it several times and had no difficulty with it. I will check that out very quickly. I hope that the Senator was using the right name. If true, it would give a very wrong impression of the interest if people cannot get on the site.

Senator Quinn raised the issue of the loss of collective or corporate memory in Departments which decentralise. I assure the Senator that any restaffing of Departments and offices will be the first priority in the programme's implementation. I acknowledge that the process of "sitting with Nelly", as he called it, is very much the core method by which an organisation trains its members. There will be a period in the massive project of moving 10,000 civil servants to 53 locations when there is some double staffing. There may be a short period of reduced efficiency, but the previous experience of decentralisation has shown extremely clearly that new people in new jobs show great enthusiasm. Whatever interim drop-off there is in delivery is quickly restored with a bonus and that will certainly be the case here.

That is not to say that the Government or the Department of Finance underestimates the challenges. On the people issues in particular, there will have to be a great deal of discourse, dialogue and listening. The most important thing of all is that it is voluntary and that people should not feel obliged. I was listening to "Morning Ireland" this morning, on which there was a discussion about Luas. An interesting article on the last tram that ran compared Dublin then and now. One of the commentators said that Dublin is now a city of 2 million people. It does not make sense that in a city of 2 million people we cannot afford the flexibility to allow just 10,000 employees of a very substantial Civil Service to relocate around the country. I agree with the comments about decentralisation that it is a very positive move for the whole country and for the civil servants. It must be implemented correctly and the Government and the Department of Finance will ensure that is the case.

There were some concerns about the issue of private recruitment agencies being involved. Human resources is now a very highly developed science and most Departments have a very specialised human resources manager. There are substantial skills in private recruitment agencies and there is an option in the Bill to make use of those skills if one so wishes. I also know from my short experience of being involved in a Department, the Office of Public Works, that those within one have their own skills and may feel that they can do the job better than the private body. Very often that is the case. I admire that in them and they are prepared to be benchmarked with a private body on how they do their jobs. If staff in any Department feel that they can do a job better than a private recruitment agency, that is the option to have. It is an important option to include in the Bill.

I believe it was Senator Paddy Burke who referred to the provision to charge people for applying for a job, which could be an option for a private recruitment agency. That provision was also included in the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956. It was used for the brief period of a year in the 1980s. We insisted on including it to maintain that flexibility. However, the intention to charge for recruitment is not there. There is also provision in the Act that, if there were a charge, the money would not go to the local recruitment agency or Department that was recruiting but to central funds. Thereby, any incentive that a private recruitment agency or a local agency might have to charge is gone.

Regarding the other issues raised, Senator McDowell broadly welcomed the Bill. He had some concerns about how it might apply to decentralisation. I referred to his lack of appreciation of some of the provincial towns.

Senator O'Toole referred to a chance meeting with a senior civil servant in a town in rural Ireland who told the Senator that there were more than 200 applications for 75 vacancies. The central applications facility will report shortly and we will then get a clear indication of the interest in decentralisation among civil servants. Previous surveys gave a negative and unreliable impression of the likely response. People are considering their options and quality of life is an important factor. There will be a substantial "churn", which is a rather unfortunate term in use within the Civil Service to represent the take-up of decentralisation. Of the more than 10,000 civil servants who move, many will change Departments and this will provide them with a new enthusiasm for their work.

Senator Leyden outlined some of the shortcomings of public service recruitment practice and Senator Maurice Hayes was in agreement on that point. There are some outrageous stories of political patronage in the past, which we are glad to leave behind, and there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent any similar occurrences in the future.

I disagree with Senator Paddy Burke's contention regarding the complexity of the system and that it will represent a bonanza for private recruitment agencies. Most Departments and State bodies will continue to recruit centrally except where there is difficulty in a particular location or a vacancy requires a specific skill set. Even in those limited circumstances, recruitment will be mostly done internally rather than farming it out to private recruitment agencies, not least because of the cost factor for which provision may not be factored into departmental budgets. That will be at the discretion of the Department heads.

I have addressed most of the issues. I thank the Senators for their contributions and I note the generally positive response. The Bill will not be enacted before the end of this session but I look forward to its implementation.